Time for a mass redistribution of wealth

If this were one of those sim games, where you control the sim-nation, and it evolved to a state of mass poverty and 1% of the population controlling
everyone else, that game would be considered a fail. Too much unhappiness. Not enough balance.

They have tipped the scales too far. It's obvious to any reasonable person. This psychosis of greed may even destroy the world if it's allowed. I am
convinced at this point that the "free market" championed by these mentally ill people is nothing more than an enabler to their addiction.

I'm reminded of a time I played monopoly with my little sister. I won that game so well-- but the winnings were so good, I didn't want to stop
playing. My stacks of $500 bills so high that it went beyond the capacity of the bank, and we had to switch to paper and calculator. My little sister
was so sad to lose and I had so much fun winning that I said, don't worry, just pay me what you can now, give me your railroads, and when you pass
go, just give me the $200 for a few turns. I worked out a nice little debt system for her so she could still hang onto hope of winning... of course I
knew she had no chance. Every lap around the board she only accrued more debt. She was not having fun, but I kept encouraging her. This mentality is
exactly in control of the capitalist system. It's bad. It's a scam. There is no opportunity and they know it. They LIKE it that way.

Time for a massive change. I vote for a mass redistribution of wealth.

edit on 30-1-2014 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason
given)

That was a very well done analogy.

I agree with you, but the 'people' keep finding ways to keep themselves in the position they are. Divide and rule has always been the most
effective tactic, especially one that the victimised perpetuate themselves unwittingly.

In your analogy, there would have been another player - lets say a younger brother - who like your sister would have been struggling in the game.
After some time, they would have conspired to revolt against the game and your advantage and try to get to you share some of your wealth.

What you would then do, is get your sister on your side, by giving her some properties (old Kent road, water works and maybe electricity) and get
her out of debt. You would still be on top by far, but she would be less inclined now to revolt and would assist you in keeping your little brother
in the game and conspire to make him feel he has some chance eventually of getting out of debt.

Your sister would be poor, have a small percentage of the total wealth and little chance of changing this, but as there was someone beneath her even
poorer, this would give her sense of self worth and place and contribute to the status quo.

This in my view, is the current dynamic of the US system. The brother in this analogy is of course, marginalised diverse communities, whether its
generally acknowledged or not. The only way to beat this system is for all marginalised communities to band together, instead of thinking as
themselves as having more in common with the rich elite, than they do themselves.

Voting for any republican party and accepting their world view, is self defeating for the majority of people, who have been conditioned to think
otherwise.

Let's take everything from everyone that has more! Then WE'LL be the ones that have more!

Then no-one better take it from us, right?

'Cause then we'll be the 1% and we EARNED it by taking it from those who earned-. . . . oh.

Um, never mind. . . . . .

Beezzer, this is the problem with greed. It infects society. Torches and pitchforks really could happen when you allow mentally ill people hooked on
greed and self pursuit to allow a system to become so out of balance that 1% controls 99. We have to change it BEFORE the pitchforks and machine guns
come into play. A mass uprising is what eventually happens in this kind of situation. The greedy know this, and their answer is to build a military
capable of policing its own citizens and mass surveillance system to try to stop the inevitable...

Dear god, put your pitchforks away. Just get onboard with legislation that tips the scales back in favor of the majority and don't buy into the
demon-possessed propaganda that tries to scare you into supporting the 1%.

Stand strong. When you say raise minimum wage and they snarl and spit green slime and say "F*ck you, priest!" -- stand your ground and know goodness
and fairness is on your side.

anon72
The largest Mass Redistribution of Wealth going on is Obama & Co robbing the country blind by mandating and regulations.

Unfortunately history shows that if you don't force companies to follow regulations, they always do what is in everyone's worst interest to maximize
their profit. Whether it be dumping waste into ground water, fluctuating the market, doing 'creative' bookkeeping, paying slave wages, etc... In a
perfect world, where you could trust them to act with a modicum of ethics, things would be different. Unfortunately that's not the world we live in.

spiritualzombie
Time for a massive change. I vote for a mass redistribution of wealth.

While I agree with much of what you say in the OP, your solution is not going to work either. Historically wealth has been redistributed via wars.
Kingdom A was wealthy and kingdom B was starving, so they went to war, one way or another the problem was resolved. Either kingdom B won and took A's
stuff, or B lost and its population decreased or it was taken over and made part of A. As war has changed, the only wealth that changes hands anymore
in a war is the public paying military contractors for goods. So now its lose/lose and the only winner is the military industrial complex.

However, at the same token you cannot just take money from party A and give it to party B in a democratic government that is ruled by a constitution.
Besides not being fair, all the money will just go right back to the rich anyway. By the time that the poor pay off all their debt to the rich, guess
who got the money again? So now you have the rich ticked off, and probably going to act in an even more greedy fashion, and they have all the wealth
again.

As far as I can tell there are only a couple ways to handle this. The best way is to level the playing field to allow the little guy a chance to make
it. You do this by making stronger laws regarding things such as taxes, relying on taxes for benefits, outsourcing, off-shoring, lobbying, campaign
contributions, minimum wage, etc... That forces them to have to play fair or move elsewhere. If they chose to move elsewhere, then you don't allow
them to do business here anymore. In this instance I guarantee that they would rather play fair then lose the biggest consumer base in the world.

Another way to do it is to deal with the debt levels. That is much harder to do fairly, basically it rewards those who did worse and punishes those
who lived better. It also will have an effect on credit ratings and confidence in granting future loans. The one debt that I think should be removed
is the debt owed to the Federal Reserve. We are basically paying them for doing nothing, which by itself is a contract with no 'consideration', and
therefore invalid. In case you don't know what that means, basically for a contract to be valid each party has to bring something of value to the
table, money, time, work, etc. As the Fed does not bring anything to the table in compensation for what we pay them in interest, its really not a
valid arrangement.

If this were one of those sim games, where you control the sim-nation, and it evolved to a state of mass poverty and 1% of the population controlling
everyone else, that game would be considered a fail. Too much unhappiness. Not enough balance.

They have tipped the scales too far. It's obvious to any reasonable person. This psychosis of greed may even destroy the world if it's allowed. I am
convinced at this point that the "free market" championed by these mentally ill people is nothing more than an enabler to their addiction.

I'm reminded of a time I played monopoly with my little sister. I won that game so well-- but the winnings were so good, I didn't want to stop
playing. My stacks of $500 bills so high that it went beyond the capacity of the bank, and we had to switch to paper and calculator. My little sister
was so sad to lose and I had so much fun winning that I said, don't worry, just pay me what you can now, give me your railroads, and when you pass
go, just give me the $200 for a few turns. I worked out a nice little debt system for her so she could still hang onto hope of winning... of course I
knew she had no chance. Every lap around the board she only accrued more debt. She was not having fun, but I kept encouraging her. This mentality is
exactly in control of the capitalist system. It's bad. It's a scam. There is no opportunity and they know it. They LIKE it that way.

Time for a massive change. I vote for a mass redistribution of wealth.

edit on 30-1-2014 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason
given)

That was a very well done analogy.

I agree with you, but the 'people' keep finding ways to keep themselves in the position they are. Divide and rule has always been the most
effective tactic, especially one that the victimised perpetuate themselves unwittingly.

In your analogy, there would have been another player - lets say a younger brother - who like your sister would have been struggling in the game.
After some time, they would have conspired to revolt against the game and your advantage and try to get to you share some of your wealth.

What you would then do, is get your sister on your side, by giving her some properties (old Kent road, water works and maybe electricity) and get
her out of debt. You would still be on top by far, but she would be less inclined now to revolt and would assist you in keeping your little brother
in the game and conspire to make him feel he has some chance eventually of getting out of debt.

Your sister would be poor, have a small percentage of the total wealth and little chance of changing this, but as there was someone beneath her even
poorer, this would give her sense of self worth and place and contribute to the status quo.

This in my view, is the current dynamic of the US system. The brother in this analogy is of course, marginalised diverse communities, whether its
generally acknowledged or not. The only way to beat this system is for all marginalised communities to band together, instead of thinking as
themselves as having more in common with the rich elite, than they do themselves.

Voting for any republican party and accepting their world view, is self defeating for the majority of people, who have been conditioned to think
otherwise.

I would say, the flaw is not in the players, but in the game. The game encourages winning, and the winner has all the money. That's the problem with
Monopoly. Co-op games are way better. They are about all of us succeeding by pooling our strengths.

People need to stop worrying what the other guy has and be happy with what they themselves have. I'm not mad at the guy down the street who has a
sweet ride that he worked hard for but it might motivate me to work harder for something I WANT as long as I take care of my basic NEEDS first.

People need to stop worrying what the other guy has and be happy with what they themselves have. I'm not mad at the guy down the street who has a
sweet ride that he worked hard for but it might motivate me to work harder for something I WANT as long as I take care of my basic NEEDS first.

You know what's worse than greed and jealousy?

Starving, dying people.

Nobody gives a crap about boats and nice things and nobody is jealous of anyone.
The point is the disparity between those very, very rich people.... who have the same money as many nations GDP.... and then those at the bottom, who
are starving, dying, diseased and without a voice.
Exploited and left to starve by the very billionaires at the top.

Don't buy into the jealousy thing that certain members on ATS are spouting, it's absolute bollocks.
People just see so much inequality and injustice and suffering in the world and then see those with the ability to fix it and make a difference... and
they just don't.

Personally, I don't think its the game at all - its learned behaviour. All you want and more could be enacted through legislation to help shift the
balance of wealth, but the very same people who would benefit (who comprise the vast majority of people) would vote against it, due to the division
between themselves.

History shows it to be true. You have people thinking their material wealth (trinkets essentially) are more important than social equity. That is
learned behaviour and will persist no matter the background culture or how it changes. People so obsessed that other people don't get access to
their trinkets and meanwhile overlook that people effectively own them and their trinkets many times over.

Change the education, change the people, change the system. Otherwise, it will come crashing down as everyone scurries to their learned
respective positions.

Pure socialism/communism is nearly a true idealism for the masses. Now what you state is true but it is not the fault of the system. All of it falls
down (socialism, liberalism, conservatism) no matter what the political persuasion in the interpretation. THAT is where the whole pack of cards fail.
It's all to do with man. Man interprets the law, rules or ideology and being as their is a small minority of greedy men who are in power they will
always monopolise the wealth. The only way to allow the masses to enjoy their lives is to give and take at the money trough. This can only be done
through changes in legislation forcing the so called 1% to share equitably. They WILL NOT give up money or power voluntarily.

Pure socialism/communism is nearly a true idealism for the masses. Now what you state is true but it is not the fault of the system. All of it falls
down (socialism, liberalism, conservatism) no matter what the political persuasion in the interpretation. THAT is where the whole pack of cards fail.
It's all to do with man. Man interprets the law, rules or ideology and being as their is a small minority of greedy men who are in power they will
always monopolise the wealth. The only way to allow the masses to enjoy their lives is to give and take at the money trough. This can only be done
through changes in legislation forcing the so called 1% to share equitably. They WILL NOT give up money or power voluntarily.

Ah, yes, the system that looks so damn good on paper but would never, ever work in practice. It doesn't matter what level of society we're talking
about, there are always going to be people who will game the system to get ahead and find advantage.

Communism/socialism relies on a society where everyone is wholly invested in making it work for everyone else. We are not hive insects.

The American republic has endured for well over two centuries, but over the past 50 years, the apparatus of American governance has undergone
a radical transformation. In some basic respects—its scale, its preoccupations, even many of its purposes—the U.S. government today would be
scarcely recognizable to Franklin D. Roosevelt, much less to Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson

n 2010 alone, government at all levels oversaw a transfer of over $2.2 trillion in money, goods and services. The burden of these entitlements
came to slightly more than $7,200 for every person in America. Scaled against a notional family of four, the average entitlements burden for that year
alone approached $29,000.

People cant see how greed has destroyed the world and they think because someone went out of their way to rig and earn more money the 3 billion other
people on the planet, no matter what, those people are dumb, lazy, and stupid.

I have several boats, cars, trucks, guns, guitars, jet skis, dirt bikes, etc. You know how I got all this stuff?
I worked my ass off for it all and you ain't taking @#** from me!
If you want what I have, do what I do and put in the blood, sweat and tears.

This damn gimmie attitude will get you nowhere!

This is a blind argument. Gimme attitude? You worked hard?? Are you kidding me? So a single mother, taking care of her kids because dad couldn't
handle it, and now she's working 3 jobs just to make ends meet... she's not working as hard as you? Is she just a whiny little "gimme
attitude"?

And how about tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals. Is that "gimme"?

You are blind to the struggles of others. I congratulate you on your hard work. I congratulate you on your winnings.

And who appointed you their policeman? I agree it's disgusting, but what gives you, me, or anyone else the right to compel someone else to be the way
we want them to be?

And once you start, where do you stop?

Who else disgusts you and what would you then force them to do? ... For the greater good, of course ...

When you flout laws, avoid taxes, exploit workers and poison the environment, and nobody bats an eyelid and brings you to trial for your crimes, I'd
say someone needs to do something right?
There's no "Where do you stop" about it.
This is the same moronic argument from the other thread.

All people want is for those at the top to pay their fair share, and they don't.
They have amassed ridiculous fortunes that are kept in off-shore tax havens, not paying any taxes whatsoever.
They use huge teams of lawyers and accountants to make sure they avoid paying their fair share.

All I want is for the money owed to be paid and for laws to be put in place to stop these kinds of things happening in the future.

Well said ! the entire system as been abducted since 12/21/1913 - and just like scrooge they wring hands as they clutch their
stolen booty.
They would enslave the world and nearly have.
The internet was a major oversight on their part.
The heard has raised it's collective head - tense w/ anticipation...

What I meant by that was the people arguing in these threads, the people calling for those at the top to pay their share etc.
We're not doing it because we're jealous and want the rich folks boats and cars..... far, far from it.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.